G. Christ did not enter Heaven with His blood.

Hebrews 9:12

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption <for us>.

Dr. Jack Hyles:

Why was the resurrection necessary? Because the high priest, Jesus, had to be raised from the dead so He could become our high priest and take the blood into the holy of holies.⁽⁹⁰⁾

The Blood Indoctrinators claim that Christ entered Heaven with His blood, and quote Hebrews 9:12 to prove it. Yet, this verse does not say that He entered with His blood; it says that He entered by His blood. This is an enormous difference. It is the difference between proving the Blood Indoctrinators claim for the destination of Christ's blood, and discrediting those who use it for this purpose.

The words "by" and "with" are prepositions; they show the relationships of objects in space, time, use or origin. "By" can be used in either the instrumental (the instrument used by Christ to entered Heaven) or the locative (the location as Christ entered Heaven) sense, and so can "with." The Blood Indoctrinators claim that the word "by" is being used locatively in this verse, that is, that the verse shows the location of Christ's blood as He entered Heaven. That would exclude the use of the word "by" in the instrumental sense. The reader should ask himself two questions; "What is the evidence showing the way that the word 'by' should be understood?" and "What is the significance of each use of the word 'by'?"

The most favorable interpretation for the Blood Indoctrinators is by assuming that they are right that the word "by" should be used in the locative sense in this verse. However, when "by" is locative, it only means that the objects are near each other or beside each other for at least a short time. It does not mean that they accompany each other. If Christ entered Heaven near His blood, it would not mean that His blood was taken to Heaven. It would mean that His blood was along the path, somewhere, that Christ took to reach Heaven. Christ would have entered Heaven by His blood in the same way that you might enter your house by your mailbox. Therefore, the best possible interpretation of the English word used in this verse does not give the Blood Indoctrinators justification for saying that Christ took His blood into Heaven.

The other meaning of "by" indicates that Christ's blood was the reason or cause for Christ entering Heaven. This is the same meaning indicated when someone says, "I am saved by the power of God." It is due to that agent that another event took place. This seems to the author to be the most likely use of the word "by" in Hebrews 9:12. It does not violate a reasonable interpretation of this verse; it agrees with common English usage; the other meaning of this word does not seem to agree with the context of the verse. As long as it is agreed that the reasonable English translation of this word is "by," there is little room for doubt about the meaning for this verse.

If the word "with" had been used by the translators, then this verse could either mean that Christ accompanied His blood into Heaven, or it could mean that Christ used His blood to enter Heaven. The meaning becomes ambiguous. For 600 years, English translators have used the word "by" to convey the meaning of this verse. In recent years, though, they have been translating this verse so that it either could or must mean that Christ took His blood into Heaven. We Fundamentalists make much mention of the corrupted Bibles being published today. We recognize that heresy is taught by the elimination or alteration of important words in these corrupted Bibles. Yet, look who agrees with the Blood Indoctrinators. It's not the old English translations, but only the modern, corrupted texts!

Wiclif 1380,

nether bi blood of goot buckis or of calues: but bi his owne blood entrid oonys in to holi thingis that weren founden bi an euerlastynge redempcioun[.]

Tyndale 1534,

nether by the bloud of gotes and calves: but by his awne bloud we entred once for all into the holy place, and founde eternall redemcion.

Cranmer 1539,

nether by the bloud of goates and calues: but by hys awne bloude he entred in once into the holy place, and founde eternall redemcion.

Geneva 1557,

Nether by the bloude of goates and calues: but by his owne bloude entred in once into the Holy place and purchased eternal redemption for us.

Rheims 1582,

neither by the bloud of goates or of calues, but by his ovvne bloud entered in once into the Holies, eternal redemption being found.

Authorised 1611,

Neither by the blood of Goates and Calues: but by his owne blood hee entred in once into the Holy place, hauing obtained eternall redemption for us.

RSV,

he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ^s not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

^s Greek through

Phillips,

It was not with goats or calve's blood but with his own blood that he entered once for all into the holy of holies, having won for us men eternal reconciliation with God.

N. E. B.,

the blood of his sacrifice is his own blood, not the blood of goats and calves; and thus he has entered the sanctuary once and for all and secured an eternal deliverance.

When there is a question about a copy or a translation's meaning or accuracy, the reasonable thing to do is to look at the text from which the copy or translation was made. In the case of this verse, that generally means looking at one or another Greek text (although Wiclif made his translation from the Church of Rome's Latin Vulgate⁽⁹¹⁾). For the Blood Indoctrinators to be correct about this word being used locatively, the verse must say that Christ entered Heaven with (accompanied by) His blood. It definitely does not. The word used is ("dia," meaning "pass through [the middle]," "the instrument that causes an occurrence" or "the reason that something happens"), not µ ("meta," meaning "in the company of" or "assist or help"), or ("soon," meaning "to travel with or accompany," or "to go together"). The Holy Ghost was particular on that point; He could have made the matter at least doubtful enough to give the Blood Indoctrinators room to insert their meaning into the phrase. His choice of wording absolutely eliminates that possibility. The Blood Indoctrinators do not have any basis for using this verse to support the Blood Doctrine. It requires a willful misrepresentation of fact to translate this in their favor.

If "by" is used instrumentally, it means that Christ used His blood as the means for entering Heaven. It would not mean that His blood was necessarily anywhere near Him. It only means that the blood gave Christ the power or authority to enter the holy place, where He could plead for our Salvation. When we go to a stadium or a theater, there is someone who collects our tickets to let us in. We enter by the authority of the ticket. The ticket does not enter; it only allows us to enter. This is the usage that makes the most sense in this verse. Notice the comments made by Albert Barnes in Hebrews 9:12:

It was by, or by means of--... The meaning is, that it was in virtue of his own blood, or by means of that &ldots; the consideration on which he pleads for the pardon of his people, is the blood which he shed on Calvary. Having made the atonement, he now pleads the merit of it as a reason why sinners should be saved... It is not of course meant that he literally bore his own blood into heaven... or that he literally sprinkled it on the mercy-seat... [Christ's shed blood] is now the ground of his pleading...⁽⁹²⁾

Albert Barnes lived and died over a century ago. Yet, the Blood Indoctrinators want us to believe that the faith of the fathers demands that Christ took His blood into Heaven. They say that only Modernistic Liberals deny the Blood Doctrine's teachings. Well, here's another Modernistic Liberal, Arthur Pink:

...It was by virtue of the blood of these animals that Aaron entered so as to be accepted with God. The reference here is not directly to what the high priest brought with him into the holiest--or the "incense" too had been mentioned--but to the title which the sacrifices gave him to approach unto the Holy One of Israel...⁽⁹³⁾

An interesting point about Mr. Pink's comments is that they show that a person can believe that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament analogies without literally taking His blood into Heaven. Furthermore, it shows that a Fundamentalist preacher can hold such a belief. The Blood Indoctrinators would very much like to forget these things.

John Owen made the very interesting observation that,

It is a vain speculation, contrary to the analogy of faith, and destructive of the true nature of the oblation of Christ, and inconsistent with the dignity of his person, that he should carry with him into heaven a part of that material blood which was shed for us on the earth. This some have invented, to maintain a comparison in that wherein is none intended. The design of the apostle is only to declare by virtue of what he entered as a priest into the holy place. And this was by virtue of his own blood when it was shed, when he offered himself unto God.⁽⁹⁴⁾

The reader may detect an insistence in Mr. Owen's statement, regarding the time and place of Christ's sacrifice. Mr. Owen had, for three pages previous to the one on which this comment appeared, made several strong arguments against Socinianism (Socinianism had a strong influence on the formation of English Unitarianism). It was their belief that Christ's sacrifice was only in Heaven, and not on Earth. They believed that the blood that Christ shed on the cross had no effect for our Salvation, but only Christ's offering in Heaven. By coincidence, these are the same teachings of the Blood Doctrine.

The Blood Indoctrinators have given stinging opinions about people who say such things as Mr. Owen said about Christ's blood. The Blood Indoctrinators claim that those who don't believe that Christ took His blood to Heaven treat Christ's blood with contempt. However, Mr. Owen felt very strongly about the holiness of Christ's blood:

The ruin of Christian religion lies in the slight thoughts of men about the blood of Christ; and pernicious errors do abound in opposition unto the true nature of the sacrifice which he made thereby.⁽⁹⁵⁾

Most people would consider a 300 year-old comment to be anything-but new. Yet, Dr. Paisley says,

Into the pulpit of the churches there has come a new breed of men who sail under the flag of evangelicalism and some of whom even dare to hoist the flag of fundamentalism ... They preach on the necessity of being washed in the Saviour's blood in order to get to Heaven... Then they tell their congregations that they have been to college, have met up with scholars and the majority evangelical scholarly view is that the blood of Christ ran into the sand.⁽⁹⁶⁾

Doctor Paisley wrote his comments after 1983, since he criticized Professor Pat in that same article. Note also that Dr. Paisley attacks the idea that Christ's blood ran into the sand, even though 1) Luke 22:44 says that when Christ prayed in the Garden of Gethsemene, His sweat became as great drops of blood falling to the earth, and 2) the instructions for the analogy of Christ's offering (e.g., Exodus 29:12) required "all the blood" to be poured at the foot of the altar upon which the sacrificial animal was offered. All of the lamb's blood was to be poured at the foot of the altar outside the tabernacle. All of the blood of the bull and goat was also poured there, except for that little bit that was taken into the Holy of Holies. Doctor Hyles made the comment that

...If that blood had just been left at the altar, not a single Jew would have had one sin forgiven. It's not the blood at the foot of the altar; it's the blood on the mercy seat.⁽⁹⁷⁾

The author believes that Dr. Hyles is wrong when he says that "not one sin" was forgiven based on the blood at the foot of the altar; why have a sin offering all year round when the only one that mattered was the annual sin offering? The Blood Indoctrinators have placed exclusive interest in the offering in the Holies, to the exclusion of the offering outside the Holies. Mr. Owen's primary argument against Socinianism was that Christ had to make his offering for our sin on the Earth, not in Heaven.

There were many typical sacrifices, which nothing belonging unto went beyond their suffering. Such were all the expiatory sacrifices, or sacrifices to make atonement, whose blood was not carried into the sanctuary... And these sacrifices were types of the sacrifice of Christ, as our apostle testifies, chap. vii. 27, "Who needeth not daily" ( µ) "to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." Had he intended only the sacrifice of the high priest, he could not have said that he was to offer it µ, "daily," when he was to do so only , "yearly," chap. x. 1. It is therefore , or "daily sacrifice," that he intends, and this was not carried on beyond suffering.

...But there was nothing of these sacrifices carried into the holy place, nor any representation made of them therein &ldots; Wherefore, if the sacrifice of Christ answered unto them, as the apostle teacheth us that it did, he offered it in his suffering, his death, and blood-shedding only. After this he entered as our high priest into the holy place not made with hands, to appear in the presence of God for us...⁽⁹⁸⁾

We see here that a very educated, godly man, the epitome of what Fundamentalism was supposed to take us to, uses the Bible to prove that the daily offerings, as opposed to the yearly, typified Christ's atoning sacrifice of Himself. Furthermore, this also shows that Christ could not have taken His blood into Heaven, since that would have broken the type. Notice that it is when this old-fashioned Christian attacks a Satanic denomination that he finds himself exactly attacking the teachings of the Blood Doctrine.

Doctor Paisley should be careful how he attacks the "majority scholarly view," since it is this compromised view that supports him, and since he probably did at least a little bit of work to earn his title. It is self-defeating, if not hypocritical, for a man with a doctorate to condemn scholarship, unless he renounces his education. The author also notes that Fundamentalists become quite agitated when a new translation leaves out the word "blood" in some reference, but they don't seem at all disturbed by the obvious change in meaning of the above verse. For 600 years the Bible has said that Christ entered "bi" His blood, the only reasonable meaning being that He entered by the power or authority of it. Now, for no apparent reason, someone changes "bi" to "with," and not even the Fundamentalists object. Is there a conspiracy here? The editors of the Revised Standard Version at least hinted that they did not put the original meaning in their translation; their footnote says that the word that they translated to mean "taking &ldots; his own blood" actually meant, "through." The average reader, though, probably would only be confused if he tried to substitute "through" for "taking" in this verse.

Hebrews 10:19 says that we have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus." The Bible says that Jesus entered the Holies by His blood, which is the same way that we enter the Holies! This is obviously figurative, since none of us have actually entered Heaven before our deaths. If Jesus took His blood to Heaven in Hebrews 9:12, then we must take His blood to Heaven in Hebrews 10:19. The Blood Indoctrinators know that they don't have a drop of Christ's blood to show anyone, so they become al here, pretending a deep mystery, that in their SOUL they possess the blood of Jesus. Since we can't see that, we can't disprove it; be suspicious of a religion that relies on tricks of faith, since too many deadly cults rely on that to keep their members. The Bible says that our hearts are washed with His blood, but it doesn't say that His blood is in us. The Blood Indoctrinator cannot accept that we don't need a magic substance to be seen by God and that Christ's sacrifice was all that mattered.

What did Abraham or Moses or Job possess that could give them an audience with God? The blood of Christ (and, therefore, the blood of God) did not yet exist. They only had faith in a sacrifice that would take place. All we need is faith in a sacrifice that did take place. None of us need to have Christ's blood to have an audience with God, and, for the Scriptures to be consistent, Christ did not carry His blood into Heaven. The Blood Indoctrinators are trying to pawn a degenerate religion on us.

There is another aspect of this verse to consider. The last phrase of verse 12 is usually translated to say that Christ entered the holy place "having obtained eternal redemption." This phrase means that

Christ entered into the heavenly sanctuary "after He had secured" an eternal redemption. The securing of our eternal redemption took place at the cross and was followed by His entry into heaven.⁽⁹⁹⁾

Those of the Blood Doctrine tell us that Christ had to present His blood on the Mercy Seat in Heaven before we could be redeemed. Dr. Hyles tells new converts,

...after 72 hours, He rose again &ldots; Why did He rise? He rose because He had to take His blood to the presence of our God &ldots; how did He give us eternal redemption? By being the High Priest. &ldots; the blood had to be applied in the presence of God &ldots;⁽¹⁰⁰⁾

...If that blood had just been left at the altar, not a single Jew would have had one sin forgiven. It's not the blood at the foot of the altar; it's the blood on the mercy seat.⁽¹⁰¹⁾

Yet, Hebrews 9:12 says we were redeemed before Christ entered the Holies and after He was crucified. The work of redemption was completed on the cross (John 19:28, 30 "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst &ldots; When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished...") Hebrews says we were secured before He entered; Blood Indoctrinators say that it was after.

It should be noted here that when the author has presented John 19:28-30 to the Blood Indoctrinators, they indicate that they don't think that Christ meant that His work of redemption was finished, but that His work on Earth was finished. In other words, "all things were not now accomplished, but awaited their completion in Heaven." If Christ was on the cross to take man's place in God's judgement, it would make the most sense that when Christ said, "It is finished," that He was referring to His substitutionary work. If His work was not done on the cross, but in Heaven, then the cross was merely a stepping-stone in the plan of Salvation. The Gnostics believed that Christ's crucifiction was not in itself redeeming, but merely an illustration or teaching tool to show how man should reach the unknown God, or that the cross was the instrument that enabled Christ to return to the unknown God. What an odd coincidence.

Christ entered the Holies before His Resurrection, and our eternal redemption was secured before He entered the Holies. The Resurrection was the sign to us of that securing. The Blood Indoctrinators say that the blood had to be in the Holies in Heaven; the Bible says that our eternal redemption was secured before Christ even entered the Holies. The Bible's explicit explanation of this is more important than any interpretation of Old Testament types, particularly types that only exist in the minds of Blood Indoctrinators.

Mr. Owen commented on this in his attacks on Socinianism:

[There is no reason to believe that Scripture uses the past tense in Hebrews 9:12, but means the continuing present, except] the false hypothesis of our adversaries, that Christ offered not himself until his entrance into heaven, which they judge sufficient to oppose unto the clearest testimonies to the contrary. For whereas the words of the apostle signify directly that the Lord Christ first obtained eternal redemption, and then entered into heaven, or the holy place not made with hands, they will have his intention to be the direct contrary,--that he first entered into heaven, and then obtained eternal redemption; for that offering of himself which they suppose was consequential unto his entrance into the holy place.⁽¹⁰²⁾

^{____________________________________________________________________}